# John Conyers wants to keep science hidden **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2009, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379 "2009-03-05T13:24:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/1 "2009-03-05T13:24:37Z")
A [bill](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a110fa6-0219-11de-8199-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) by John Conyers is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen. It means that taxpayers would have to pay to see the results of the scientific studies they have paid to have done. I read many studies directly because of my son’s medical condition, and because I am curious about all sorts of things. This bill must be stopped. I think it is terrible that so much research is not more widely available. How can result be reproduced or inspire more research if they can’t be read? I think we should require works commissioned by the government to be freely available. If the public pays for it, the public should be able to make use of it. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/2 "2009-03-05T14:26:20Z")
> [@lee](#): > > A [bill](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a110fa6-0219-11de-8199-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) by John Conyers is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen. It means that taxpayers would have to pay to see the results of the scientific studies they have paid to have done. I read many studies directly because of my son’s medical condition, and because I am curious about all sorts of things. This bill must be stopped. I think it is terrible that so much research is not more widely available. How can result be reproduced or inspire more research if they can’t be read? I think we should require works commissioned by the government to be freely available. If the public pays for it, the public should be able to make use of it. John Conyers is a dickweed shill for the dying business model of dead-tree publishers. Corporate Welfare at its worst. It’ll die in Committee just like it did the first time. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/3 "2009-03-05T17:28:27Z")
> [@lee](#): > > I think we should require works commissioned by the government to be freely available. If the public pays for it, the public should be able to make use of it. That’s exactly how it works in my field. If a study is funded by the government, the results are required to be made freely available after publication. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/4 "2009-03-05T21:12:24Z")
And in my field, nobody’s required to make their results public (though the raw data from any NASA mission becomes public after at most a year), but almost everyone chooses to do so anyway. We scientists _like_ sharing information. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/5 "2009-03-06T15:58:09Z")
Well, the publishers have been trying their damndest since before browsers existed (anyone remember Archie?, the first i-net search engine) to prevent public posting of papers. Academics do all the research, all the writing, all the refereeing, for free and then the publisher takes over, pays a pittance to the editor-in-chief (maybe) prints and mails it and asserts complete ownership. I say FTS. I have not used a commercial publisher since 1995, when their prices started to hit astronomical heights. On the other hand, I am technical editor for an online journal that is distributed gratis. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/6 "2009-03-06T16:03:19Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > It’ll die in Committee just like it did the first time. Good. It should die. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/7 "2009-03-06T17:44:57Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Well, the publishers have been trying their damndest since before browsers existed (anyone remember Archie?, the first i-net search engine) to prevent public posting of papers. Academics do all the research, all the writing, all the refereeing, for free and then the publisher takes over, pays a pittance to the editor-in-chief (maybe) prints and mails it and asserts complete ownership. I say FTS. I have not used a commercial publisher since 1995, when their prices started to hit astronomical heights. On the other hand, I am technical editor for an online journal that is distributed gratis. In my area, almost all publishing is done through technical societies, IEEE in my case. Journals are a lot cheaper than commercial ones, and there are far more of them. For one price you can get access to all the publications on line. Journals and magazines get both paper and on-line publication. But there are costs. Though the editor-in-chief, ed board, and columnists are all volunteers, there is a professional editing staff. We get money every time someone accesses an article from the on-line library. But I think there is something to be said about having a journal, and not a bunch of unconnected papers going from review into the library. Anyhow, there is only one commercial journal in my area, which might be dead. It never gets referenced very much, probably because its circulation is so low because of the cost. Society publication works pretty well. An, on topic. Conyers is a jerk. I’m quite glad he lost his chairmanship. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. I didn’t get the gist of the bill from the link, but making taxpayer funded research free seems fine to me. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/8 "2009-03-10T00:34:51Z")
> [@lee](#): > > A [bill](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a110fa6-0219-11de-8199-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) by John Conyers is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen… Well, [his wife is a nut too](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=508990) (post #5). They must have some interesting dinnertime conversations. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/9 "2009-03-10T01:17:29Z")
> [@lee](#): > > I think we should require works commissioned by the government to be freely available. If the public pays for it, the public should be able to make use of it. Huh? I thought that there was already a law (or maybe it’s not a law, but a requirement) that if a research is getting X money from the NIH, they have to publish the results in a free online journal. At least, I remember reading about it a while ago. And over the last few years I’ve noticed an increase in the number of articles available online that show up in Pubmed. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/10 "2009-03-10T02:27:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Huh? I thought that there was already a law (or maybe it’s not a law, but a requirement) that if a research is getting X money from the NIH, they have to publish the results in a free online journal. Yes, but that’s just the NIH. There are a number of other avenues through which the government funds research in various fields-- NASA, the DoE, the NSF, the department of defense, etc. So far as I know, the NIH is currently the only one which requires free publication (though several others encourage it). ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/11 "2009-03-10T09:10:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yes, but that’s just the NIH. There are a number of other avenues through which the government funds research in various fields-- NASA, the DoE, the NSF, the department of defense, etc. So far as I know, the NIH is currently the only one which requires free publication (though several others encourage it). Ah, thanks for the information! ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/12 "2009-03-10T09:33:46Z")
> [@lee](#): > > A [bill](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a110fa6-0219-11de-8199-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) by John Conyers is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen. It means that taxpayers would have to pay to see the results of the scientific studies they have paid to have done. I read many studies directly because of my son’s medical condition, and because I am curious about all sorts of things. This bill must be stopped. I think it is terrible that so much research is not more widely available. How can result be reproduced or inspire more research if they can’t be read? I think we should require works commissioned by the government to be freely available. If the public pays for it, the public should be able to make use of it. What does the actual bill **propose** …it required me to register before I could get to the gist of the legislation. ?? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-conyers-wants-to-keep-science-hidden/488379/13 "2009-03-10T11:17:59Z")
Here’s the text of the bill > [@Fair Copyright in Research Works Act](#): > > To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to works connected to certain funding agreements. > > ``` > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, > > ``` > > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > > ``` > This Act may be cited as the `Fair Copyright in Research Works Act'. > > ``` > > SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING EXTRINSIC WORKS. > > ``` > (a) In General- Section 201 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: > > `(f) Limitations on the Federal Government- > > `(1) LIMITATIONS REGARDING FUNDING AGREEMENTS- No Federal agency may, in connection with a funding agreement-- > > `(A) impose or cause the imposition of any term or condition that-- > > `(i) requires the transfer or license to or for a Federal agency of-- > > `(I) any right provided under paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of section 106 in an extrinsic work; or > > `(II) any right provided under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 106 in an extrinsic work, to the extent that, solely for purposes of this subsection, such right involves the availability to the public of that work; or > > `(ii) requires the absence or abandonment of any right described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) in an extrinsic work; > > `(B) impose or cause the imposition of, as a condition of a funding agreement, the waiver of, or assent to, any prohibition under subparagraph (A); or > > `(C) assert any rights under this title in material developed under any funding agreement that restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of rights under this title in an extrinsic work. > > Any term, condition, or assertion prohibited under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) shall be given no effect under this title or otherwise. > > `(2) CONSTRUCTION- > > `(A) CERTAIN OTHER RIGHTS NOT LIMITED- Nothing in paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II) shall be construed to limit the rights provided to the copyright owner under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 106. > > `(B) NO NEW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION CREATED- Nothing in this subsection provides copyright protection to any subject matter that is not protected under section 102. > > `(3) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection: > > `(A) EXTRINSIC WORK- The term `extrinsic work' means any work, other than a work of the United States Government, that is based upon, derived from, or related to, a funding agreement and-- > > `(i) is also funded in substantial part by one or more other entities, other than a Federal agency, that are not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party; or > > `(ii) represents, reflects, or results from a meaningful added value or process contributed by one or more other entities, other than a Federal agency, that are not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party. > > `(B) FEDERAL AGENCY- The term `Federal agency' means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government. > > `(C) FUNDING AGREEMENT- The term `funding agreement' means any contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a Federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a Federal agency, in whole or in part, for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities.'. > > (b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a) applies to any funding agreement that is entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. > > (c) Report to Congressional Committees- Not later than the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall, after consulting with the Comptroller General and with Federal agencies that provide funding under funding agreements and with publishers in the private sector, review and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the Register's views on section 201(f) of title 17, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, taking into account the development of and access to extrinsic works and materials developed under funding agreements, including the role played by publishers in the private sector and others. > > (d) Definitions- In this section: > > (1) EXTRINSIC WORK; FEDERAL AGENCY; FUNDING AGREEMENT- The terms `extrinsic work', `Federal agency', and `funding agreement' have the meanings given those terms in section 201(f)(3) of title 17, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section. > > (2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. > > ``` As a point of reference, Section 106 is about Copyright, and paragraphs 1-5 are essentially the entirety of the basic Copyright rules. There is a paragraph 6 for sound recordings which is surprisingly not tossed in for giggles.